Try viewing the proposition in terms of the possibility of a negligent discharge vs. the possibility of a personal defense situation (PDS) arising.
You handle the weapon every day. PDS happens for the typical CCW holder almost... wait for it... NEVER.
Some people just like to take their chances based on calculated risk.
I see you're still out shilling for Bloomy, Brady and the rest of that crowd. Let's see what the hard data have to say about your speculation.
John Lott, Don Kates, and Gary Kleck are the acknowledged experts in this field. Their research is peer reviewed, and is considered to be solid enough that it was included in the "firearms violence" report commissioned by Obama (which, BTW, actually DISPROVED Obama's belief that gun control is necessary) after Newtown - and it says you're full of it.
Firearms owners deploy their firearms in lawful self defense on the order of nearly.. wait for it..
TWO MILLION TIMES EVERY YEAR.
Over 6,000 times EVERY DAY.
Did you get that?
Two million is a long way from "never."
In 98% of cases, just displaying the firearm is enough to de-escalate a self-defense situation, but the remaining percentage means that, according to their research, the gun-carrying civilians you've been dissing kill about 3,000 bad guys each year - more than cops do.
And guess what? The
CIVILIANS are safer. Cops kill innocent victims in 11% of their shootings, versus 2% in lawful, civilian self-defense shootings.
Did you get that? You're actually safer around most of the folks on this forum when the stuff hits the fan than you are if the police respond to the situation.
And BTW, the idea of allowing civilians to carry as the solution to criminal violence was also affirmed by none other than than Ron Noble, the head of Interpol, in a recent interview with lamestream media giant ABC.
That is the hard data.
Next time, try doing a little research from credible sources before you spew that tripe that passes for "informed opinion" with you.